Sexual Abuse, For the SCMC and LDS Believers

[_Droopy]

I say again - Loran only has his view on this topic regarding LDS leaders. You can bet he probably huffed and puffed about the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, but doesn't like it when his own precious church is in the spotlight - because LDS "priesthood" Trump's all, right?

Beam, meet mote...

fook

Vast quantities of alcohol and other similar substances, meet fook's cerebral cortex.

Result: Most of his posts.

[_Droopy]

Stop this. What you're forwarding is sheer idiocy and has nothing whatsoever to do with what either truth dancer or I have stated. While statistically, males make up the bulk of child sexual abuse offenders, no one on this thread, and certainly not I, has singled out all males except for the situation involving the LDS Bishop as a case in point where children are permitted to be questioned one:one behind closed doors. If the LDS Bishop were female, this thread would still exist. Until society is able to provide a test to determine potential child sexual abusers, no unrelated adult in a position of trust/authority should be permitted to interact one:one with a child alone and behind closed doors. What you're supporting is the setting up of children for potential abuse and adults for potential allegations.

Here's what TD said:

I recently completed a National sexual abuse prevention program, Darkness to Light, designed to help eliminate the epidemic of child sexual abuse that has escalated in the last few years.

There is no such thing as an "epidemic' of child sexual abuse, and never has been. These are the rantings of a crusading authoritarian busybody, and nothing more.

I have been saying for years that the Bishop's interview is completely inappropriate at best, and should be eliminated. Parents should not allow their children to be interviewed about sexual matters by anyone other than a professional under rare situations with all the appropriate safeguards in place. An adult male should just not be behind closed doors alone with a girl or boy discussing ANYTHING sexual. This situation should never happen. EVER.

This implies all, everyone. It is universal. All I've done here is what TD never does, move beyond the rhetoric to the logical nad conceptual implications of the rhetoric. TDs apparant exclusions regarding therapists and perents is ambiguous at best.

Indeed, you have contradicted yourself within only two pages of this thread:

While statistically, males make up the bulk of child sexual abuse offenders, no one on this thread, and certainly not I, has singled out all males except for the situation involving the LDS Bishop as a case in point where children are permitted to be questioned one:one behind closed doors.

Yet a page before, after offering a scathing rebuke of my claim that TDs (and this movement's) claims are logically universal in application, you then state:

They ARE.

The teacher, the scout leader, the bishop, the teacher assistant, the next door neighbor, the relative, are ALL potential child abusers and not just males, Loran.

Precisely my point.

[_Phouchg]

Vast quantities of alcohol and other similar substances, meet fook's cerebral cortex.

Result: Most of his posts.

Ducking the issue and resorting to untrue ad hominem attacks? Sound about right.

FYI, aside from the sip of sacramental wine during Eucharist, I have not had a drink since before I was "baptized" into Joseph Smith's church in 1997, and I have never used any illegal substances. You may wish to retract your libelous assertion.

fook

[_Mercury]

Sexual abuse is about power and control as much as it is about massively inapropriate sexual behavior. The bishops interview is a primer for this same feeling of power and control combined with an opportunity for a sexual predator.

[_Mercury]

Vast quantities of alcohol and other similar substances, meet fook's cerebral cortex.

Result: Most of his posts.

[/quote]

Everyone run, a coggy is loose in the clockwork!

Someone get Fraa Erasmus. He could fix it.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Loren...

Let's try this again.

Would you think it good to advise children to not play alone in a inner city park at midnight?

(Hopefully you would say yes).

Why?

Is it because every single person on the entire planet IS a child sexual abuser?

No, it is to protect children from those who are and to keep them safe.

Similarly, we need to help children realize the situations which may put them in danger... being alone, behind closed doors, with a trusted adult in a powerful position over them, discussing sex is the EXACT situation where the vast majority of sexual abuse happens.

Eliminating these situations is not even close to suggesting every man (or woman) in the entire world is a child abuser. It is eliminating the opportunity for sexual abuse. It is what normal people find appropriate when it comes to protecting children.

Why you are such an advocate for powerful adult men discussing sex with children and teenagers alone behind closed doors is a bit disconcerting to me. Or is it only LDS Bishops who get to do this without your condemnation?

When children need to discuss sexual issues (with a professional for example) there needs to be strict safeguards in place and children need to be taught that they do not have to disclose or discuss their sexual feelings or behaviors with a neighbor man down the street, or any other person in a powerful position over them.

And, while you may want to deny sexual abuse happens or that it is extremely rare, the fact is, it is out of control, and I do consider it an epidemic (excessively prevalent). About 1 in 4 girls, 1 in five boys have been victims of sexual abuse.

But I am not arguing about stats.

We need to protect children.

[_solomarineris]

I have been saying for years that the Bishop's interview is completely inappropriate at best, and should be eliminated. Parents should not allow their children to be interviewed about sexual matters by anyone other than a professional under rare situations with all the appropriate safeguards in place. An adult male should just not be behind closed doors alone with a girl or boy discussing ANYTHING sexual. This situation should never happen. EVER.

This is beyond scary, I cannot think an appropriate reason for this kind of one/one interview.
It was intimidating enough even when I was adult (24) going through first time.
Kids are vulnerable, LDS clergy has not training.

[_Yoda]

Loran, you asked me to point out where you mentioned a leftist conspiracy:

After this latest nightmarish exercise in leftist moral hysterics that makes every adult male, every father, every Bishop, every scoutmaster, and every Church leader a potential child abuser, and brands every adult male in the nation as a potential risk the moment they are out of sight or alone with a child, I think I'll begin to take my own advice much more seriously.

The final Oprahfication of the world has begun as TD attempts to resurrect the long discredited child sexual abuse hysteria of the mid-eighties to mid-nineties in the interest of stigmatizing male LDS church leaders and driving a wedge of distrust and suspicion between male adult role models in Priesthood leadership positions - all of them, simply because of the the fact that they are male adults - and the children of members.

Take a look at the bolded references in your post above. Maybe you didn't specifically say that we were part of a leftist conspiracy, but you obviously think that we are all a bunch of leftists acting out "nightmarish moral hysterics".

Frankly, you're not helping your argument by engaging in ad homs, and continuously making sweeping generalizations, when it has been repeated time and again that we are not trying to slam the Church. We're trying to come up with solutions that will protect children.

Get your head out of the sand and see what's happening in the world, Loran. I don't like it anymore than you do, but the fact remains that child abuse is a problem. In an ideal world, should we have to worry about bishop's interviews? No, we shouldn't. And when the Millennium finally happens, we won't have to worry about it again.

In the meantime, as a fellow member, why don't you help us brainstorm some solutions?

One thing I thought about is to require bishops to go through some type of professional youth counseling courses? I think this would be a good place to start, and is a long time coming.

[_Jersey Girl]

Stop this. What you're forwarding is sheer idiocy and has nothing whatsoever to do with what either truth dancer or I have stated. While statistically, males make up the bulk of child sexual abuse offenders, no one on this thread, and certainly not I, has singled out all males except for the situation involving the LDS Bishop as a case in point where children are permitted to be questioned one:one behind closed doors. If the LDS Bishop were female, this thread would still exist. Until society is able to provide a test to determine potential child sexual abusers, no unrelated adult in a position of trust/authority should be permitted to interact one:one with a child alone and behind closed doors. What you're supporting is the setting up of children for potential abuse and adults for potential allegations.

Here's what TD said:

I recently completed a National sexual abuse prevention program, Darkness to Light, designed to help eliminate the epidemic of child sexual abuse that has escalated in the last few years.

There is no such thing as an "epidemic' of child sexual abuse, and never has been. These are the rantings of a crusading authoritarian busybody, and nothing more.

I have been saying for years that the Bishop's interview is completely inappropriate at best, and should be eliminated. Parents should not allow their children to be interviewed about sexual matters by anyone other than a professional under rare situations with all the appropriate safeguards in place. An adult male should just not be behind closed doors alone with a girl or boy discussing ANYTHING sexual. This situation should never happen. EVER.

This implies all, everyone. It is universal. All I've done here is what TD never does, move beyond the rhetoric to the logical nad conceptual implications of the rhetoric. TDs apparant exclusions regarding therapists and perents is ambiguous at best.

Indeed, you have contradicted yourself within only two pages of this thread:

While statistically, males make up the bulk of child sexual abuse offenders, no one on this thread, and certainly not I, has singled out all males except for the situation involving the LDS Bishop as a case in point where children are permitted to be questioned one:one behind closed doors.

Yet a page before, after offering a scathing rebuke of my claim that TDs (and this movement's) claims are logically universal in application, you then state:

They ARE.

The teacher, the scout leader, the bishop, the teacher assistant, the next door neighbor, the relative, are ALL potential child abusers and not just males, Loran.

Precisely my point.

Loran,

Let me put this delicately. I wrote you a somewhat rather lengthy post in the hopes of communicating with you on this topic, yet, in spite of your years of complaininging about this board and it's lack of intellectual exchange/debate, you refuse to engage in it.

Your reasoning is faulty. Your ability to discern is faulty and honey, you couldn't remove beyond rhetoric with the aide of 60 ton crane to pull you up and away from it.

Should you change your mind about communicating. I'll be around. Go point by point and I'll do it. One point, Loran. Just one.

One.

Jersey Girl

[_Droopy]

FYI, aside from the sip of sacramental wine during Eucharist, I have not had a drink since before I was "baptized" into Joseph Smith's church in 1997, and I have never used any illegal substances. You may wish to retract your libelous assertion.

It cannot be libelous as it was an insult, obviously tongue in cheek. You clearly don't understand the law to about the same degree you don't understand the gospel. There's quite a high bar for libel in the U.S. Insults and negative opinions of others, even if bombastically off base, are well below it.

Oh, I see, Eric has opened the floodgates of litigation of any claim or assertion - or ad hominem attack - that another doesn't like. I see. You think the bar has been lowered to the same moral level that you and Eric find suitable to your purposes.

I again...see.